Another batch of opinions wanted!

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Vanir,

Well, what you are describing, is a rarity system that *discourages* people from taking rare units, and you appear to be opposed to that.

How would a rarity system based on point values work, if it didnt discourage you from taking rare units? Isnt that the whole point?

Please elaborate on what you would like to se, because I cant see where you're going with this...

[This message has been edited by *Captain Foobar* (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philistine:

How does the computer handle picking units now? Does it pick rare units less than more common units?

Thanks.

--Philistine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having done some tests I can say that it definately does pick rare units less frequently. I once set up 30 assault scenarios in a row with computer picking forces and I got a total of around 14 Panthers and 16 Mark IVs but not a single Tiger I, even tho the Tiger I is cheaper than the Panther.

------------------

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[Vanir]

Foobar:

Well, it's a moot point now. Steve posted some stuff while I was typing that changed my view, so I deleted the post. But you posted this before I deleted, which I didn't realise until I replied to Philistine. Sorry about that.

Ok, if the cost of the unit will vary wildly from battle to battle, that is a good thing and it solves my worst worries. The only thing that concerns me is that if someone really wants a KT or Jagdtiger, he can keep setting up games until he comes up with a cheap price for the unit he wants. In a PBEM this puts the 2nd player at a disadvantage. I don't see any easy way around this.

------------------

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[Guest Big Time Software]

Vanir,

Don't worry about that. I can promise you that it will not be allowed, just like a PBEM player can't keep reloading a turn until he likes the outcome and then send that one over to the other player. Very easy to prevent this problem.

Steve

[PAEZ]

This tread is pretty long so I did not

read all of it but, I'm going to vote on yes

on having the vehicles a bit more expensive

My reasoning is that in reality jeeps and tanks are more expensive,oil parts etc

In order to keep the game realistic this should be factor in.

My two cents.

[R-Man]

Well, I guess you’re still reading this thread, so I’ll throw in my two cents. The jeep price is fine. I seldom buy jeeps, for the simple fact that I would rather have a bazooka team. But if my support points are low, and I’ve got room for a vehicle, I’ll pick up a 19 pt. MG Jeep. I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen one survive a battle(?) It would be funny to send one on some kind of gamey recon patrol, but I’ve never tried it. That would be a waste.

Reasons to leave it as it is: The jeep can only carry two guys, the 50 cal. has already been toned down, and compared to a half-track, it ain’t much.

Rarity notwithstanding, your point system is pretty good. Although, I think the increased price of a fast turret MAY be overstated in the game. A veteran Panther seems to swing plenty fast, and he fires almost twice as fast as a regular U.S. tank destroyer. A fast turret doesn’t seem to be worth all that much under such circumstances.

Hey, you guys got your props in the November Computer Gaming World magazine. There was a very favorable letter to the editor, and it was the TOP scorer in this month’s game roundup. But of course, you already knew that.

Three months plus, and this game still rocks.

[willmontgomery]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The other problem you mention, which is wisely purchasing units like an expert consumer, is just as much a part of the game with this optional rarity thing as it is now. So since AARs like you described aren't appearing now, they won't once this system is in place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, this is simply not true.

Right now a player can decide to more or less accept your research and analysis and to trust that unit costs are a fair representation of CM combat value. He doesn't have to be an expert on WWII hardware, or commit to memory the CM ratings, or develop an independent analysis of protection vs. hitting power, etc. In fact, even if he has done all these things, he might still be better off not second-guessing unit costs, since you guys have presumably weighed unit characteristics with the advantage of inside knowledge of how the game engine works, so you are uniquely qualified to generate the best analysis. So in CM1 the only thing that makes the choice of one unit more judicious than another is whatever knowledge may be available about the QB options plus knowledge of what weapons one may have more facility with.

Messing around with costs changes the whole process. So I am begging you, if you must do this the way you propose, then please show the base costs on the same screen. Otherwise I'd have to have encyclopedic knowledge even to have any idea when something was overpriced. And "overpriced" would be a judgment, a judgment that has no analogue in the current system (or in the historical event, I might add). Any misjudgment of what is overpriced is an avenue for error that could influence the outcome of the battle; hence my introducing the AAR issue.

Looked at systematically, your proposal creates the following situation for any particular QB:

1) Some items will cost their base price. No problem here.

2) Some units will cost so much that it would clearly be an error to choose them. But they'll still be on the list, so there is a possibility that somebody could select such a unit to his detriment. How does it improve the game to knowingly include pitfalls for people to fall into? Or if such an error is never made even once worldwide, then what was the point of leaving these units on the list?

3) Some units will be in the gray area above base cost but below clearly overpriced. For these units I will have to be an analyst to judge value vs. price. That means I will need another skill to be competitive, a skill not needed by a tactical commander. My success as a battlefield commander will be affected by my skill as a WWII-hardware-as-represented-in-game-terms analyst, and that's gamey.

Now I know it'll be an option, but it's an option that would be near to my heart, that I would love to use, and it sounds like your proposed implementation might make it nearly useless to me. It's your call, but I'm giving you my feedback because you asked. What I would dearly love is an option to limit unit choices to reflect historical availability. And that's what you're seeking to offer. But historical availability at the tactical level is much more like, "Here is what is available, here is what is not," than it is to, "Well sure you can have one of those rare tanks, but only if you take less total combat power." In fact, if the base prices are "correct", then it would be an error ever to select anything priced above base, because you would end up with less total combat power.

Unless of course a whole category of equipment required for the battle has no units available at base price, effectively forcing that side to overpay for part of its force, in which case the battle might well be unbalanced unless the other side was laboring under an equivalent handicap. And how do you weigh the significance of one side's resulting handicap against that of the other side? Enter the play balance concern, which in theory could be solved by implementing constraints on the random rarity results, but good luck guaranteeing that's fair.

Now if your proposed system will have the additional characteristics that 1) enough different types of units to have a viable force will always be available at base price, 2) each unit would have some non-zero chance of being available at base price, and 3) the base prices will be displayed too, then I withdraw any concerns I have expressed. In such a case I would just pretend that everything at base price was available and everything above base price was not available, and I'd have my historical option!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bill,

Some good points, but I think you missed one critical element...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now if your proposed system will have the additional characteristics that 1) enough different types of units to have a viable force will always be available at base price,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The rarity is based on that side's own available units for the time. Since the Germans had about 1 million men on the Western Front at all times (sometimes a lot more), *something* will always be as common as dirt RELATIVE to the date. So if you are in early 1944 you will have Pattern 44 infantry at base cost. Middle of '44 you will still have Pattern 44 at base and then Volksgrenaider above base. Then it will switch late in '44 where Volksgrenadier will be at base cost an '44 will become more expensive. The point is that something, in fact a lot of things, will be at base cost. So your worry about balancing is not an issue.

As for giving the player too much choice, basically what you are asking for is to pretty much have all choice removed. That is why there is the option to allow the computer to purchase your units for you I think the Rarity feature will make it plain as day what you should purchase, but it will allow you the option to try for something the other guy won't expect. For example...

Early 1944 the Germans would get the choice of pretty much only Pattern 44 Infantry. That is it. Not even Engineers, since they are rare. As for armor, PzIV Gs and StuG Gs, most likely nothing else.

See... what you fear is what we want to avoid. Making a judgement call about what historically SHOULD be available actually locks down playability to our vision of what the player should have. This *might* not be the optimal mix of units vs. what the other side has since we would be using some imaginary cut off to keep units historically common.

No, the best way is to still offer choices. The player can pick and choose, spending points as he sees fit. The system might allow some rare units to come into a game at a reasonable price, perhaps not. But if you don't want to have the burden of choosing, then let the computer choose for you. It will be coded up to get the best bang for your buck, and that means purchasing the stuff that is generally most affordable, which will also be the most historically correct.

Steve

[Vanir]

BTW, having recently learned, along with a few others, that .50 cal jeeps do indeed have some transport capability, I now think they should be more expensive than unarmed jeeps. 25 points or so sounds about right.

------------------

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing. - Combatboy

[Guest Big Time Software]

Vanir,

We just recently learned the same thing about the MG Jeep. Funny... it never used to be able to take passengers until some typo was made in the unit database Next patch you will not find those Bazooka teams hitching a ride in an MG Jeep, that much I can assure you of

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bill,

Just one more thought. Your suggestion rests on the assumption that units had a definite start and end date on the battlefield, and during that time they were "common" or "rare". This is not true. Units had a VARIABLE degree of "commoness" depending on the month, front, and type of force.

Also, the system you proposed would actually make something like the King Tiger, or perhaps even the MarderIII, NEVER available under any circumstances ever in any game what-so-ever. Reason is that units like this were *never* common. So either we have some sort of chance of them being purchased or not. Our current proposal would allow that to happen, with appropreate costs assoicated with the unit instead of it either being there or not being there.

Steve

[Olle Petersson]

I haven't read all 120+ replies yet, but here's my view:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

In CM2 we plan on having an optional "Rarity" system that will radically alter people's purchasing habits if used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please make this in the way of allowing normal cost for the first few of rare items, and then the price goes up (unless the item was really rare).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! But that's also true for footsluggers.

If counting all units alike when determining the point value i think you should come out right.

Some factors:

1) Mobility.

Speed on/off road, ground pressure, etc.

2) Armament and ammo supply.

Including traverse, ROF, etc.

3) Defence.

Armour, speed, stealth, silhouette, "toughness".

4) Cargo capacity.

Comparing the MG Jeep to a HMG team in these respects;

1) Jeep is very fast, but can't go everywhere the team can.

- Jeep win by far, say 5 pts.

2) Jeep has AA capability, haven't seen that with the MG team. The team has more ammo.

- Team win, 3 pts.

3) The Jeep is fast, but the team can hide and use cover better. The team can take more hits before being knocked out. The Jeep crew is very fragile.

- Team win fairly, 4 pts.

4) The Jeep can take two men, not very useful.

- The Jeep win by a little, 1 point.

Result: MG Jeep, 6 pts. HMG Team, 7 pts.

Only one point difference, in advantage of the team. Take my points times 4 and you have the CM points...

Cheers

Olle

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Wow, your ISP goes down for 9 hours and you come back to find 128 answers to your question. Cool?

I thought it would be best to start up a new thread and close up the old one.

....snip....

OK, with those thoughts in mind, let's see what folks have to say

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets look at the questions again:

"So putting all game related type questions, do you or do you not think that a vehicle has an inherent worth that should be factored in?"

I agree that speed is a force multiplier, and vehicles should have some extra inherent worth, I think. I'm not sure why the term egg shells with hammers comes to mind, but some how it seems relevant here.

Steve says:

"OK, looks like the majority don't want vehicle prices changed (besides nitpicks on this or that vehicle). Those of you that do want some price changes aren't too taken with our initial proposal, so I gues that one is off the table. Here are some more thoughts...

TWO things are going to help out "disposable unit syndrome" in the future, but we still want to look at the "weaker" unit prices. The two things coming up are:

1. Fixes to offroad speeds and spotting ability while moving "Fast" involving light wheeled vehicles. The values used right now are not correct (more of a bug than a design problem). This will be patched in.

2. In CM2 we plan on having an optional "Rarity" system that will radically alter people's purchasing habits if used. This will eliminate, if used, many of the current unit mixes that break the game away from reality.

I think the factor of the "disposable unit syndrome" is what is at issue here.

I believe there "should" be some diposable vehciles and I think that some players will want to play the game and plan their strategy by determining in their own mind which of their units, be they men or vehicles, are in fact (at least for this battle) to be designated as " disposable units". I'm not sure this can ever really be patched or programed or coded out because it is a way of thinking that goes somthing like "what unit will give me the MOST disposable bang for the buck?" so it does not really matter how you patch or code the game, players who think this way (a hold over from the "usually" succesful "soak-off" or Min-Max strategy thinking of 2D boardgames) will figure out which units give them the best recon bang for the buck and waste those units if they feel that is what they need to do to win.

I'm not really concerned about the issue of buying units in QB's because I don't like QB's or the process of cherry picking or playing someone who only plays the germans on defence on an open map with no air.

I prefer to play premade scenarios and am more than happy to trust my opponent if he says he has never seen that scenario before.

I think this issue regarding the rarity factor is mostly to do with the gamey way of playing that includes QB's where players ARE allowed the oppotunity to Cherry pick. I think that process of picking units is in and off its self a "Gamey" process so all thing that follows it are likely to be even gamier.

We must find a way to provide players with the thrill and opportunity to play double blind matches that include good and fair play balance on a fun map that avoids that opportunity to "cheery pick" all the best units.

My personal opinion on this is to use a newly created user designed scenario and play test it in PBEM head to head. If the scenario designer is well known and well respected he has probably offer you a well thought out and nicely designed scenario that will challenge both of you.

If you are looking for PBEM opponents this way post a thread here requesting a never before released scenario to your specifications and I'll bet that either someone has one , some one is working on one, someone is looking for TWO PBEM play testors OR Someone WILL design one (probably fairly quickly) to your specifications then you will both be free of cherry picking and get a nice well designed scenario with bridges and raods and a well conceived map and unit selection.

In my opinion it is the process of player unit selection that is gamey to begin with.

I do support the idea of turning on an optional rarity system for CM2 but for now in CM lets focus on the worth of those MG jeeps with the.50 cal on the back. I still think they are cheap and give WAY to much bang for the buck, which is why they have been identified by gamey players as the disposable unit of choice for fast deep joy ride recon missions.

-tom w

BTW I was busy over the weekend this is what I was doing:

http://ecardview.hallmark.com/hmk/Website/greeting.jsp?id=EG5114-411528-3218074

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit."

-Los

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[jpinard]

If you install a rarity factor, could you please make it an "option", instead of forcing it? That we we will have a lot more options in the game, instead of "just" being limited to what historically happened.

Thanks!

[Daveman]

Oh dear... Jeff, read the top article on page 4. I think BTS answers your question pretty well

------------------

“Fortune favors the brave" - Terence

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Ethan, we kicked this idea around earlier on. It actually doesn't produce a different result than the system we have proposed. The "rarity pool" you mentioned is the same as the system lowering the rarity value randomly. The only real difference is that the rarity pool allows the player to decide if something rare is going to be affordable rather than the game system. I think it would be better to let the game do that or we might very well see King Tigers and JS3s popping up in every battle And because of the point pools for different unit catagories, you realy can't harm the ability to purchase Infantry by squandering all your Vehicle points on something like a Puma (at least no more than you can do right now).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's my problem with that. For purposes of illustration, let's suppose that a MkIVH and a Puma have the same purchase price, unadjusted for rarity, of 100 points and let us further suppose that they have equal combat effectiveness. In a game w/o rarity adjustment, I could therefore have my armored force of 500 points composed of any combination of MkIVs or Pumas up to the maximum. Suppose now that the rarity adjusted price of the Puma is 200 points. I can no longer simply trade-off Pumas for MkIVs. If I want an all Puma force, I'm now restricted to 2 vehicles, plus a MkIV to make up the numbers, whereas if I wanted the common vehicles I could have 5 tanks.

Again, players are being penalized in terms of combat effectiveness for their preference for rare units. If a rare unit is especially combat effective, let that be reflected in the price. I'm still not clear on why rarity should impinge on the combat effectiveness of a given force. If your goal is to let the computer determine rarity, then let rarity points be assigned randomly, rather than determined by the players.

[GriffinCheng+]

A lot of opinions have been raised, I am late, as usual, but I would like to put my $0.02

Appearently, BTS ppl are trying to solve 2 problems we have been discussing lately, "gamey recon" and "cherry picking".

I second the idea of decreasing the "fast" speed of light vechiles, especially jeeps and trucks and lower their effectiveness in recon, instead of just raising the costs of these vechicles.

I would like to see is a random TO&E in the force choice rather than generic force types such as "combined arms", etc. It would be fine if CM gives a company of Volksgrenadiers with random-generated supporting heavy weapons and a random number of STuGs when I choose "Heer infrantry" given date "Jan 1945" and 1000 points, say. It is far more easier for me to run a qb I want rather than handpicking all the time. I have admit I don't sometime like "borg shopping" very much for CM does not seem to use all the "money" granted.

If I have to do the shopping on my own, I would go with the Rarity Option. As a non-grog, I am not sure if my picks are hisotrical or not and I am not aware that Puma was very rare until I read this thread. Or I would think, humm, this vechicle is cool, let's "buy" 2 for my panzer recon.

If all the proposed changes would be made, I think it would make CM even more infantry-intensive in long term, in QB at least. As I understand, it is a design-decision to leave out C&C in vechicles, unlike other games like TotP and PitS, I am not sure if this impact would be good or not to see less vechciles in qb.

Regards,

Griffin.

------------------

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ethan wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, players are being penalized in terms of combat effectiveness for their preference for rare units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so. Combat effectiveness is independent of rarity. Some VERY effective vehicles will be as cheap as possible, while some rather ineffective vehicles might be priced through the roof.

The way our system works is that units are initially priced based on combat effectiveness, which is the way it is in CM1. The Rarity system simply makes the rarer units more expensive using thier base value as a starting point. In this way we succeed in doing what it is we are setting out to do -> make the rare units RARE. If this puts the price of a King Tiger or Puma out of reach of the vast majority of the players for the vast majority of the games... GOOD! Because that is what it is designed to do

The random "rarity reduction" allows for some variability to enter into the picture. So instead of having King Tigers and Pumas *never* be a wise purchase choice, they sometimes will be (to some degree or another). I think that is a great system to work with.

Steve

[willmontgomery]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The Rarity system simply makes the rarer units more expensive using their base value as a starting point. In this way we succeed in doing what it is we are setting out to do -> make the rare units RARE. If this puts the price of a King Tiger or Puma out of reach of the vast majority of the players for the vast majority of the games... GOOD! Because that is what it is designed to do

The random "rarity reduction" allows for some variability to enter into the picture. So instead of having King Tigers and Pumas *never* be a wise purchase choice, they sometimes will be (to some degree or another). I think that is a great system to work with.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The longer this exchange has continued, the more I think we really do not disagree. Certainly judging from your responses to my posts, I have not done a good job of making myself precisely clear. Rather than try to explain exactly what I meant, let me just ask for confirmation on two points:

1) Will there be a non-zero likelihood for each type of unit, under at least some set of circumstances, that it could appear for base price? Like, in the narrow case of QBs of at least a certain size with the right battle type and force mix during the right months -- considering only these specific QBs -- then from among these QBs there might be 1 in 100 of them in which the random rarity premium for the PzKpfw VIB would be zero. Not the same thing as saying it's ever common, just that once in awhile out of many QBs, each set for when the King Tiger is as common as it ever gets, the random rarity reduction would produce a final price equal to base price.

2) Will the base price be displayed along with the rarity-adjusted price so we can tell at a glance how much the rarity premium is?

If the answer to both these questions is "Yes", then I will be able to use your system to easily accomplish what I want, and I withdraw any previous reservations I may have expressed.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Not so. Combat effectiveness is independent of rarity. Some VERY effective vehicles will be as cheap as possible, while some rather ineffective vehicles might be priced through the roof. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but it remains the case that, under the system you describe, two units of equal combat effectiveness, one common, one rare, will have radically different prices. You want to make Pumas uncommon and I support that, but if I, the player, want Pumas in my force, why should I have to exchange them on a 1:2 basis with Mk IVHs (to use my earlier example)?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The way our system works is that units are initially priced based on combat effectiveness, which is the way it is in CM1. The Rarity system simply makes the rarer units more expensive using thier base value as a starting point. In this way we succeed in doing what it is we are setting out to do -> make the rare units RARE. If this puts the price of a King Tiger or Puma out of reach of the vast majority of the players for the vast majority of the games... GOOD! Because that is what it is designed to do

The random "rarity reduction" allows for some variability to enter into the picture. So instead of having King Tigers and Pumas *never* be a wise purchase choice, they sometimes will be (to some degree or another). I think that is a great system to work with.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even with randomness, I'm assuming the rarity factor will never be zero. In which case, I as commander will always face the trade-off of combat effectiveness for style points . I don't think this is desirable. Yes, the end effect is, as you say, to make rare vehicles truly rare, but I still think making rarity a separate factor with it's own set of "points" is the better means to that end.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[TeAcH]

One quick suggestion that perhaps was made already (I didn't read all of the previous posts.....just some).

What about creating a pool of available unit types based on their rarity. For example, say tank X is very rare, perhaps only one is available for purchase. Factors such as the timeframe of the QB and a randomness multiplier might mean on the same QB, 1 tank X might be available, while another similar QB, 2 or 3 might be available for purchase.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

whoops

[This message has been edited by *Captain Foobar* (edited 10-03-2000).]

[STRAKER]

So how about putting in a option for a german vw scout car with a mounted gun?

Ive sen pics of em and it would be nice to use the car in a similar way to the US jeeps.

I know it was rare to do this but they did it.

Probably as rare as a US jeep speeding straight up into the german line looking the defensive setup hehehe.

By the way im for putting up the cost of jeeps because basically they can kill a halftrack too easily. With the tests others have done; and myself from what ive seen jeeps are very nasty for the points cost.

They cost bugger all and can kill a halfie with a mg that costs double far too easily.

As for the use of vehicles runing them up, and there cheap points value, i couldnt care less, people that have done that crazy recon to me have generally died very fast.

I think to help stop this u should have a new tactical game option.

Recon planes!!!!!!!!!!

And if a unit is hidden in tress u canna spot it but moving units u can spot.

That way flak would be used more as well.

Either way whatever u do, any recon on me will die fast.

Personally id rather save fast vehicles and throw a few mgs in em and when the battles half way done run em up on someones flank and give it to em.

Cheer Bol

[STRAKER]

If u really got married congrats aka_tom_w!!!!!!!!!

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STRAKER:

If u really got married congrats aka_tom_w!!!!!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I really did

it was Great

Thanks!

One off my students sent me that e-card when she found out about it over the weekend.

I thought it was funny enough to share with you folks

And yes I really did play CM against the AI while I was waiting and it was good to win!

-tom w